I’m actually surprised they would follow this order, given it’s completely unwarranted. Like who’s in charge of the national guard down there?

Couldn’t hurt our case though, right?

I could do this with my eyes closed

I would take a doubling of the current rate if they would implement voting reform - like they promised.

Really? I always thought it was the opposite. I’m broke, and even I know you need taxes to pay for all the large projects we all benefit from.

Obviously I don’t want it going to Israel, or any of the bad things which are funded in my name, but on the whole the purchasing power of our tax base is greater than anything I could do individually with my portion.

I agree in part.

I’m genuinely curious, did you read the bill, or do you plan to? If so, I would seriously love to hear your take on it. I’ve read the backgrounder, and skimmed the actual bill. Even just doing that I’m sure I’ve read more of it than 99% of Canadians.

Generally speaking, if you’ve actually read and understand it, then I say it’s your duty to help act as a vulgarizer so others can navigate it. It’s easy to say that we value citizens’ duty to educate themselves on their democracy, then figuratively cross our arms and say “well I read it and I don’t agree” and refuse to elaborate, when asked for your informed (and valuable!) opinion–which is what certain people who claim to have read the bill in this thread appear to be doing.

I’m not trying to be cheeky. If you’ve (or anyone else has) read the bill and you care about our democracy, then please share your actual thoughts on the bill! So far all we seem to be doing is arguing meta amongst each about how to talk about bills, and not the fucking bill–pardon my language, this comment sections is frustrating me. it’s not directed at you - you’re cool. :)

I think we all need to take a step back here, and remember that there are human beings behind every account.

We’re getting into increasingly into name calling territory. Can we get back to talking about the bill?

OK so I read the intro/backgrounder, and skimmed the full doc (it’s 140 pages, like c’mon, unless you’re a retired politico you aren’t reading that), and I pretty much agree with most people here. I don’t have much interest in the number of rich immigrants are granted access, but I am concerned about the increase in police search powers, and restrictions on asylum seekers. If they have a legitimate case, why would we impose a hard time limit on them?

Also the fact that fentanyl is specifically mentioned (and highlighted in a heading of the backgrounder) is… embarrassing.

I would love to see trakata address Daniel Quinn’s specific questions, since they are probably one of the very few Canadians who has actually read the bill. I know people who work at CBC, and they haven’t even read it.